dragonfyr Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 ---------------- On 6/10/2005 10:26:21 PM skeptic wrote: I was 100% wrong. I am eagerly awaiting what will happen in the future, I am currently trying to get my employer to get a Apple Intel development kit. As a long time Mac user, I hope this move doesn't hurt them, as in my eyes with os x they were just picking up new users, who were mostly technically savvy as opposed to design. My new Quad processor Opteron box arrives Monday, I'd love to have OS X running on that...ohwell. -m ---------------- I think it's a good discussion! With lots of possibilities! But currently with a few too many unknowns perhaps! And I agree! OSX is a superior OS that features wonderful attributes initself along with great power and great admin capabiliites, both as a desktop and a server! And with its inherent UNIX compatibility as well as Windows compatibilty, it is uniquely positioned to offer the best of both worlds in a world where UNIX/Linux and Windows do not interoperate well (despite Samba and a few server based tools). It would be nice to build an AMD box and load OSX onto it! Especially if VMWare would run (as it already supports BSD on the X86!) But if they can get it to run on the X86 platform, I think many would love to try it and even replace their desktop with a truly powerful and friendly OS, while maintaining compatibility with their existing Windows world and resources - something the real world requires! And it is certainly a more friendly and powerful alternative then Linux, which is simply UNIX done the Windows way! :-( The Mac has the potential to offer the best of both worlds! IF THE MASSES SIMPLY KNEW THIS! But if Apple keeps it on a proprietary platform, and simply markets it with their artsy 'creative image' without educating the masses about the practical aspects of the platform, only those willing to go out on the limb will use it! ...As has been the case! Apple needs to educate the masses with practical details and an "apples vs oranges" comparison of the platforms - in order to counter the 20 year old misconceptions of the Mac being more expensive and offering little compatibility! ...When the opposite is true! After all, how many people that you know, even know that the Mac is full blown FreeBSD UNIX under the covers? Or that it not only is Windows file compatible, but that it runs Windows!? But they need to get the word out quickly as to the exact form this new venture will take! Let's hope Apple can figure it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 ---------------- On 6/10/2005 6:34:55 PM Marvel wrote: As further fuel for the fire, the same person who broke the news/rumor about the processor change is reportedly saying that Intel is going to buy Apple. That could really give Microsoft pause I would think. ---------------- Intel or not, I'm sure MS are watching veerrryyy attentively... although they won't publically say it. My guess that is part of the motivation of not permitting OSX to run on all PCs (obviously aside from the hardware sales). ---------------- I imagine that a specific bios or ROM will be required to boot OSX on an Intel platform. That is just MY prue speculation. ---------------- Sounds probable... perhaps several integrated ROMs on their motherboard or if Apple were really serious, they could implement design which would affect system performance if removed from the OSX (like a memory management subsystem) I'd rule out any flash PROM chips though. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 Dvorak and Cringley have been predicting a change of processors for several years - most notably touting a strategic alliance between Sun & Apple. It is a bit ironic as both Sun and IBM have in the past tried to buy Apple! But, if I understand you correctly, I am not sure how MS would be involved with preventing OSX from running on the PC. MS has NO leverage here. Besides, MS's investment in Apple benefited MS as it simply insured that MS would have a strategic advantage in remaining the largest Mac developer. But there is NO love lost between Jobs and Gates. It has simply been that Gates is better at strategic market analysis then Jobs, who seems to focus more on the 'machine' to the detriment of market penetration! And Intel is no longer tied to MS. This was in evidence with Project Monterey, when during the development of Itanium the major UNIX vendors partnered to port their OSes to Itanium, until that unraveled as the Itanium was being rolled out. Since the late 90's Intel has aggressively partnered with non-MS OS developers in insuring that their products would be supported by various OSes, and Apple is the last 'holdout'. And despite the rumors regarding Intel and Apple, I fail to see the strategic advantage in Intel somehow creating some exclusive strategic relationship with a vendor who possesses such a small market share. ...Regardless of how elegant I think their system is. Intel has more to gain by insuring that multiple OSes run on their systems then establishing any kind of exclusivity. But who knows! Stranger things have happened! And Intel may still be looking for a way to salvage the Itanium debacle - although the Itanium offers FAR less in terms of cost/performance then Power! And it does not offer backwards compatibility with 32 bit apps...so... Oh, and the Mac has always employed a PROM with resident code rather then the 'disk based' format employed by Windows! I simply think it is a strategic mistake for Apple to prevent OSX from running on generic PCs, as it simply limits their market penetration, And trying to hold on to the hardware market is rather like the US trying to get the shoe industry to come back to the states! Hardware has reached the commodity stage, and no amount of proprietary control will reverse the open trend. After all, look what <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />China has done by opting for Linux and requiring internal development for fear of foreign control/backdoors in proprietary OSes such as Windows. And despite Apples ability to control both BIOS and OS, if they persist in making the OS hardware linked, I can anticipate that becoming the next big target, just as the X-Box was the ultimate target of the Linux hackers! And Apple will lose, even if it is simply in the world of good will. But it is fun to speculate! And who knows! Logic and common sense do not always seem to occupy an awfully important role in some of the decisions in the IT world! It wouldn't be the first time that we would have encountered a decision that resulted in more then a few scratching their heads in wonder! But in the meantime, I expect Apples computer sales to plummet, despite some nice G5 offerings, as folks wait to see how things will devlop, which is why I am a bit surprised at the announcement without a more elaborate roadmap designed to alleviate the 'to be expected' anxiety over such a big change!! And while it sounds nice to point at others regarding this, i think I an expressing that very concern myself - not because of fear, but simply so that I can plan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formica Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 ---------------- On 6/11/2005 12:41:56 AM dragonfyr wrote: But, if I understand you correctly, I am not sure how MS would be involved with preventing OSX from running on the PC. MS has NO leverage here. ---------------- No direct leverage... but no one wants an MS breathing down their back, esp while trying to carefully make a significant product change. I'm just speculating that MS are a factor in the decision as Apple isn't ready to both sacrifice their hardware business and go stepping (dancing?) on MS's toes. ---------------- But in the meantime, I expect Apple’s computer sales to plummet, despite some nice G5 offerings, ---------------- I disagree (yeah speculating again)... their CORE fans will stay on board regardless... and the notebook sales (currently a significant market segment) will improve in moving from an antiquated G4 to a current Intel (probably something like the Yonah Pentium M). Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 But OSX already competes with Windows, and apple is in effect moving into Windows territory, not the other way around, and MS already has bought Virtual PC from Connectix... And the fallout from folks already expressing concern and waiting to see has ALREADY begun. Starting with me! And for enterprise sales, you had better figure that companies will wait and see! It is ironic, as the drop in sales when new technology is announced is precisely why they normally will not comment on new technology until it is shipping! So why the announcement to the public so far in advance!? The fallout is already being reported from many sources! Unless there are big discounts (which may very well occur due to the wait and see game! And one wonders why they announced this with almost a year to wait for any substantial new roll out of new machines!?!?!?!) And I know from simply talking with other friends, CIOs, admin, and assorted other IT pros, both those who are already Mac users and other looking from the outside, everyone is adopting a wait and see attitude! As no one is willing to jump onto a platform that will be orphaned (as Mac users keep their machines longer then PC users) and the migration is going to be rolled out slowly over TWO years well into 2007, with the first new units (low end and 32 bit only PowerBooks!) coming next year! And with all due respect, until they offer the dual core 64 bit enabled Merom (laptop) & <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Conroe(desktop) chips, there is nothing to be gained with the current netburst architectures! As Yonah will only offer dual core 32 bit capability and standard Intel SSE3 instructions, there is little improvement for graphical Mac applications! Even though word may run faster! There is simply no advantage to buying until then! Intel simply does not have compelling product until then! And AMD is unable to commit to supplying a tightly coupled chipset to support other OS platforms in the near future Besides, there will be a significant penalty to buying the Intel chips if you are using a G4 with multimedia applications that take advantage of the vector calculations optimized for Altivec. The mmx/sse instruction set offered by Intel just does not offer an incentive here! In fact it is a major dis-incentive for graphics and multimedia folks. So where is the incentive to buy? To be the first generation guinea pig to troubleshoot the first-generation bugs? So, in the long run there may be a compelling reason to buy. But for now, the Intel architecture currently offers no real incentive to buy. Intel does not offer significant nor compelling reasons currently, and their roadmap is too far 'out' for significant improvement! It will take Merom and Conroe, along with significantly enhanced supporting chipsets, to provide the functionality and a reason to buy. So I will stand by my prediction. I believe that there will be a significant chill in sales with the exception of those enticed to buy because they either simply need a machine now, or because they will be enticed by discounts. A few will buy to take advantage of some of the multimedia advantages of Altivec, but everyone else will wait... I know I will! It will be interesting to see how the attitudes develop in the next several weeks and longer as the details of a CPU and supporting chipset roadmaps finally are produced! (But I would be delighted if there is another unforeseen compelling reason to buy!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 ---------------- On 6/3/2005 9:53:48 PM meuge wrote: Blah... Intel needs this. The 64-bit AMD Opteron chips are eating Intel's corporate server chips (Xeon and Itanium) for lunch. While many of the big OEMs (read: Dell) are still holding onto Intel, many (HP, etc.) are now shipping AMD-equipped servers. Intel's corporate server market share is dropping about as fast as the use of Internet Explorer. I am not surprised Apple went with Intel chips, rather than AMD, considering the relationship between Microsoft and Intel, and the huge piece of Apple that microsoft owns.---------------- Just a few remarks about this... It is only because Intel has put their emphasis on the expanding market for laptop CPUs that has allowed AMD to make advances into the desktop niche. AMD has made little impact upon the laptop market despite a few entries and their new mobile CPU. But watch for Intel to start bringing some new technologies off the shelf on an accelerated timetable. As far as why Apple didn't partner with AMD...they can't. AMD is dependent upon 3rd party chip makers to design supporting chipsets. Only Intel has the capability to commit to design and to guarantee to deliver a tightly integrated CPU and supporting chipset. Apple could not partner with AMD and then simply hope that the other fab shops will develop and deliver the rest of the package. That is not to say that AMD and their consortium could not do so in the future, but they do not have the present capability to do so! And Intel and Microsoft no longer have an exclusive arrangement! While they are no strangers, they are no longer joined at the hip.Intel has aggressively courted other OSes, and is no longer tied to Windows. Even Itanium was an example of that! It was originally designed to run 64 bit UNIX with Project Monterey in 1998. Besides, where is 64 bit Windows? (And speaking personally, who cares!? ) It is still in development and the UNIX world has been 64 bit since 1997! And AMD is not the driving force in CPU development, as much as we may like their current 64 bit offerings. Intel still dominates the server space by a huge margin, and the expanding laptop market is owned by Intel. And while AMD has been able to make an expanded move into the shrinking desktop niche that Intel has ignored as it focused upon the portable market, they still are playing catchup to Intel, who still dominates the desktop niche with in excess of 80% market share. As much as I root for AMD, it is still a humbling sight to look at the marketshare analysis and to realize that as well as AMD has been doing, that they still lost money last year (although that was largely due to their Flash memory holdings - another extremely commoditized marketplace - where they cannot compete with the Infinions and Samsungs...). And with the increasing market convergence and ubiquitous development of broadband high speed wireless access it will be interesting to see what business models will be able to adapt and prosper in this new emerging second internet revolution model... So, it will be an excited period ahead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.